Podcast #6: Best Practices in Partnering and MOU Development
Total Run Time: 34:05:00
[music]
Ben Krauss: The following is another in a series of recorded audio interviews,
distributed via website podcast, on lessons learned and best practices on projects funded
through the COPS Technology Grants. These podcasts are presented by SEARCH, the
National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, through funding from the US
Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS,
Cooperative Agreement #2007-CK-WX-K002.
Today's topic is Partnering and MOU Development. Our guest today is Laura Phillips,
executive director for the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative. I'm Ben Krauss, a
public technology specialist for SEARCH, and moderator for this podcast. The city of
San Francisco received a COPS 2007 Technology Grant to continue a build out of the
Bay Area Radio Network. Jurisdictions across the Bay Area, considered one of the
nation's Super UASI's, or Urban Area Security Initiative regions, are working to
cooperatively expand and link radio systems. The region is considered to be at the
forefront in partnering and developing of inter-agency agreements for shared systems.
Laura, welcome. Can you tell us a bit about the Bay Regional Interoperable
Communications System, BAYRICS, and share your background with it?
Laura Phillips: Great. Well, I am the general manager with the Bay Area, Urban Area
Security Initiative. And we've been primarily the key ingredient, to pulling together the
interoperability initiatives that were going on in the Bay Area. If you look at historically,
in 2006 there had been -- before 2006 I should say -- there were three separate UASI
areas. There was San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco. And they were all at various
levels of embarking on different interoperability initiatives. JPA's [Joint Powers of
Authority] were forming and things along that line, and enhancements were being
discussed. But in a smaller footprint, in more of a county level footprint, which was all
good. Right? And then, in 2005, the separate UASI's got an interesting notice from the
federal government, that for the next grant cycle they were going to become -- I call it the
shotgun marriage. Right? We were all going to get married. And they did that, I think, in
a couple other areas, where bodies of water kind of divided UASI areas. And I think
there was a concern, you know, with the Bush Administration. At the time, a lot of
dollars were flying out for UASI, but there needed to be more collaboration. So this
really forced the collaboration over a larger footprint, not just at county level, but looking
at things from a multi-county level.
So this shotgun marriage occurred. And remember, interoperable communications was
just one initiative, out of many, that deal with response to and recovering mitigation
towards a terrorism event, either human-generated, or a natural disaster. So that's kind of
the history. We had these separate initiatives going and then we were merged. And the
UASI's been pulling people together, through the government structure, through the
monthly working groups, working with the CAL SIEC areas, and kind of pulling together
what the strategy was going to be -- rather than everybody looking at it from that single
perspective of their county.
So hopefully, that deals with it, and people are all familiar with what the UASI program
is.
Ben: Excellent. Thank you. Broadly speaking, what sort of partnering challenges do you
face with such a large and complex region?
Laura: If you look at our UASI, and not even look at it from a physics perspective --
what do I say -- interoperability is about physics, in many ways. And if you look at the
Bay Area, we have very rural areas. We have mountain ranges, we have our coastal
ranges. We have very dense area: San Francisco, I think, is one of the most dense areas in
the nation, if not the world. But you've got very diverse needs. The South Bay has got
kind of sprawling -- lots of population in the San Jose area, that's kind of a sprawling
suburban areas. And you've got agriculture in some areas, and then you've got this other
industry. So that's one of the biggest challenges, just the diversity. So, similar to how the
Bay Area kind of revolts at -- the federal government tries to say we all need to prepare
for a hurricane because that's what has just occurred and that's what FEMA is focused
on. We want to be very cognizant and sub-regions within our larger footprint, there's very
different priorities and different needs. So I think that's one of the challenges. And we've
got the structures we've put together, or put in place, over the last grant cycle. And kind
of test them to see if there's ways that -- as we make regional decisions that benefit
certain initiatives, and benefit all of us -- is there a way still allow some prioritization of
needs at the sub-region.
And I think that's been... We're trying them out. They seem to be working, but I would
say that is one our biggest challenges is just meeting all those needs with such diverse
needs out there.
Ben: Excellent. Thank you. A portion of every COPS-funded project build upon a MOU
for the management of UASI region, designated in 2006. How would you describe that
MOU for us? And, have you had to supplement it for BAYRICS?
Laura: [laughs] Oh, yeah. Like we talked about before we kind of got into the call,
government agreements are almost ongoing in nature. You learn when you're using an
agreement, what you will need to do when you redo the next one, so to speak. So our
first marriage agreement, for the shotgun marriage, when we find it -- you won't believe
this -- our very first agreement was only for one year, and it took us almost the first full
year to get it signed. So first thing we learned is it takes some time to get agreements
signed, in that we needed to look at a more flexible structure. So if you look at the
agreement that followed that, it was a multi-year, three year agreement that was signed, it
allowed more flexibility. There's some key language in there that allowed us to do things
like, manage other grant sorces towards an initiative, rather than looking at separate
agreements for separate grants, and separate grant cycles. Right? So we learned from that.
So it's a very different agreement that we have now. We're actually getting ready -- I'm
actually crafting the next agreement that will be put in place and signed. Over the next six
months or so we'll get another one in place for the next, say, 2010 cycle.
And we'll probably go another three years. We think that's a good plan, to go three years.
Now the other thing we do to supplement it is -- there's language in that agreement, and
it's legal language that was established to give some flexibility to the general manager, to
put together other working bodies to get certain deliverables done, or work towards
specific deliverables, or projects separately. So, for example, the language allows us to put
together a regional catastrophic planning group. We pulled together emergency managers
even outside of our 10-county footprint, and we looked at counties that would be
affected by an event -- like a large earthquake, for example, would impact into the
Sacramento Valley.
So, what are those things you need to plan on for the Sacramento Valley, for catastrophic
planning? Evacuation, interoperability... And so, we kind of continue that dialogue and
that other group. We establish though, this agreement -- to stay on track here -- we
established some language that allows us to put together other groups, without having to
draft a new government agreement. But still bring those forward, and manage them
through the processes defined in the government structure.
So, what I would recommend is people put together a structure of any sort or an
agreement of any sort, to make sure it's simple enough to allow those kinds of other
things to kind of grow out of it, so you don't have to draft another agreement.
Ben: Got it. Thank you. Were there any national tools that helped in developing further
agreements?
Laura: Oh, yes. You know, we really found a lot of the tools out there when we got
around to like round two, so to speak, of our agreement. There's a SAFECOM document,
I think, that was put together that was very helpful. But, they put together a short list that
I thought we looked at internally. I believe we got that from Dan Hawkins from
SEARCH. And, SEARCH also did a few conference calls with us. So, as we were going
through the process -- I don't recall who the staff people were -- but, I know we did reach
out to the SEARCH organization and ask them for some assistance, you know, to help us
with some of that. And, I think the National Association of Governors, I think they had
some tools out there. So, we kind of just looked out in the environment in general.
Because again, government's agreements are very dynamic in some respects. So then like,
I Googled this morning. I was just looking to see if there was anything new out there
because I had heard that San Diego was making some changes to their governance
structure. And the one I like to follow a lot is the Palmetto 800 system out in South
Carolina. That seems to be a good model. And, I like to watch what they're doing out
there, especially in light of the broadband issues that are, you know, coming down the
pipeline. Those were all very good tools.
Ben: Interesting. Thank you very much. One key interagency connection piece of
BAYRICS that will be provided for the P25 inter sub system interface. Can you describe
how it's going to be used and the partnering challenges?
Laura: The partnering challenges there are, you know, the test case that we wanted.
We've had multiple meetings. And, the discussions are continual. We've had NIST
[National Institute for Standards and Technology] come out and help us. So, we put
together like our - Where do we want to test this version? And, of course, the area we
looked at is the city of Oakland, and the East Bay Area CS, because we've got a M/A-
Com, now Harris, system in Oakland. And, the other users, in Alameda and Contra Costa
County, are all in the Motorola system. And, they've been making P25 investments over
the last three years. And, in many cases, are very close to finalizing both of those systems.
But, I think, Oakland, whose coverage stops, you know, at their city border, would like
to have the advantage of roaming seamlessly into all of the other parts of the Bay Area.
So, ISSI [Inter Sub System Interface] was our way thinking to get there. What we
learned when we were meeting with NIST, is that ISSI is still not fully baked, right? So,
seamless roaming is a little, I guess, optimistic at this point, to see that we're going to get
that out of it. So, I think that's one of the concerns operationally, that we've put it in too
early. Would it have the functionality?
Well - As you know, when you're rolling out technology, sometimes, with police officers,
if it doesn't work to meet their expectations, they have a tendency not to use it and think
it doesn't work. And so managing those expectations when ISSI is still rather limited in
some respects that - I think that's going to be a challenge out there. So, this is still a
work-in-progress for us. And NIST is committed to working with us on making that
happen. And, they're still on going dialogue between all the departments over there trying
to make this work.
I'd say the other challenges is cost. I don't think we were aware when we started talking
about ISSI, that the costs were going to be so high, to do a test done like this. You know,
you've got costs on the M/A-Com Harris side, so to speak. And, you got costs on the
Motorola side. So, we were not expecting that. I guess, in my lack of having engineering
knowledge that we would buy one when ISSI - And then, that was the cost. And, it's
turned out to be a much higher cost.
Ben: How else have you addressed those challenges with ISSI?
Laura: I think we're just going to have to continue the dialogue. But, when you get into
talking as better broadband strategy, there's one thing that we're looking at there that
might be a cheaper solution, but it's not an ISSI solution. So, while the ISSI is
developing, and we continue the dialogue, and decide when it's right to make an
investment that large to get that benefit, we're going to kind of watch what's happening
out there, just the technology in general, and see. There may be another solution that will
be less expensive or we may have to go back to the vendors and say, "You know, knock it
off. You're going to have to work with us on this and get the cost down, because we're
having a hard time making the case that we would invest this hundreds of thousand of
dollars in something that's still very limited."
Ben: Got it. Thank you. Do you see any changes to agreements on ISSI use over time?
Laura: Well, I think, obviously with TICPs [Tactical Interoperable Communications
Plans] and stuff, those are going to have to change depending on the functionality. So,
when you have seamless roaming, you could have an agreement that's in seamless
roaming, but if you can't really seamlessly roam, then your TICP is going to have to
reflect that you have to do this, or you have to do that instead. So, yeah, I think these
MOUs are going to have to always be modified. And, we kind of go back, liken when we
have a big event, one of the questions that I always ask before a big event - when I see a
planned event - So I think we're testing our NECP goals here, coming up at a planned
event. And, we have other several other big planned events that we do on an annual basis
out in the Bay Area. But, the question I usually ask in the staff meeting is, OK, are TICPs
up for that, and do we need to go back and make any changes even after the event, kind
of post event? Were there any issues that we need to go back and make changes?
We try to use actual events. And then another big event that we have every year is our
Urban Shield exercise. I don't know if you're familiar with that. But, again, is there
anything we learned during Urban Shield exercise that we need to translate to either a
change in policy, a change in the MOU, or a change in the investment in the next cycle?
So, if I learned that x was needed, or there's a gap in this area, and it was discovered
either in a planned event or in an exercise, then I need to make sure that in our next grant
cycle, we're addressing that gap that may be in the investment, in the solution to fill that
gap.
So, I hope that answered the question.
Ben: It did. Thank you very much. The Bay Area has an interesting, usually aid
relationship with the Sacramento region. Could you describe that, and what you're doing
to provide for inter-agency communications during the mutual aid incidents and
operations?
Laura: Well, I would say, the first thing that occurred that kind of prompted this was, as
we were crafting our Bay Area strategy for inoperable communications, we actually
discovered we have an interference issue with Sacramento, with San Francisco PD. And,
there was kind of a fluky situation that is if there's certain things aligned at a certain time,
there would be interference from Sacramento. So, we started talking with them about
how to, first of all, mitigate that and make sure that, you know, as we were putting
together channel plans and things like that.
Ben: How do you build on formal agreements laying out each region's responsibilities
and commitments?
Laura: There's several documents or agreements in place for either sharing information
between counties, and then the connectivity in some of those networks into our fusion
center. So, one of the things we thought would be the best thing to do is first kind of
choose a information broker. We think that's the best way to call it. But, if the goal is,
when you're sharing information within the Bay Area, and you've got 10 counties, and
lots of cities within those, they're going to have various requirements for connectivity.
But, they also have various operational policies, I mean, beyond kind of the standard
security or privacy issues. And each department has their own kind of regulation, so to
speak, for how they share information outside of their cities.
So kind of grasping all that and grappling with all that, we said what's our ultimate goal?
That is to get all of our information into the fusion center where they do use best practices
for privacy. And I think we are kind of setting best practices in general for fusion centers.
And I'm sure that's another time and another discussion to talk about that.
But choosing this kind of let's get all the information to this source and then design to
that perspective and then modify or add agreements. I would say most of our MOUs talk
about sharing information. They get an agency to sign on and a lot of it revolves around
funding. So they're kind of like sub-agreements to the current MOUs.
Ben: Excellent. Thank you. It's a bit outside of your COPS-funded project, but your
success in partnering there has carried over into broadband also.
Laura: Yes.
Ben: Recently, you served as the governance working group co-chair for a recent
national broadband task force. What are the bay area's plans for broadband wireless?
Laura: Well, we are so excited about that. You know, this is something that is changing
very rapidly now that conditions, I guess for broadband are changing. We actually, the
first thing we did and we actually did this a few months ago, is we merged our working
group. So we had kind of a data interoperability group working and they were dealing
with broadband and you know, our COP Link project and our ARES project and all these
information sharing projects that were going on.
And then we had, separately meeting on a different day and time, was our
interoperability group that was dealing with Land Mobile Radio and the microwave
network. The OC3 network that spans the 10 counties and then interconnects it through
Sacramento. On what I call the I-80 corridor project.
So they were working separately and then we decided you know what? It's kind of the
same people in many places and these worlds are really converging. Really where we see
things in 10 years from now, maybe even sooner. Maybe five years from now we'll have
to address Voice over IP.
I don't think it will ever replace Land Mobile Radio, but obviously there's some way it
could maybe enhance it or mitigate some issues. Or maybe it can replace ISSI and be the
cheaper solution. I don't know. But we think those worlds are converging. The other
thing that's happening is this next generation 911.
So we really can't separate those groups anymore. They're kind of, they need to be talking
to each other and we need to be defining a network, a resilient network that can meet all
those needs. So the first thing we did was kind of converge those. Then we said we've
got to be very engaged in the broadband. We were concerned with some of the national
initiatives that were going on.
And that was early on, before the failed auction occurred. And you probably read a lot of
our comments from the bay area. We didn't believe that was a good way to go and we
fully predicted that that auction was going to fail and of course we were correct in that.
So since then we've applied for a waiver. We went through an RFI process recently and
then an RFP process and we did two things.
We have a pilot that is beginning as we speak for what we call phase zero of our
broadband strategy for the bay area. We call that Bay Web. BAYWEB is a system of
BAYRICS. You know, if you look at BAYRICS in general it's about voice and data
interoperability seamless. And there's BAYCOM which is the Land Mobile Radio piece.
There's BAYLOOP which is the microwave network. And there's BAYIS which is our
information applications that we're interconnecting and running either on Bay Loop or
another, in the future will run on BAYWEB. And then Bay Web of course is our 4G
public safety LTE solution.
So BAYWEB, my sources tell me that we're going to get our waiver that we've had in on
our 700 megahertz, that that will be approved within the next week probably. We set
aside $6 million for what we call phase zero and we're working out where those sites are
right now. We want to get as much bang for the buck for the $6 million. In other words,
test some, this is like a pioneering effort, right? With long term evolution [LTE].
No one else has deployed it for public safety and we're saying where should be deploy it
for this $6 million from UASI that will bring the biggest amount or the most valuable
data back to the consensus group. Back to NPSTC [National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council] back to NIST, back to ERIC [Emergency Response
Interoperability Center]. You know, where do we learn the most from these investments
that will help anybody else that's deploying broadband for public safety across the
nation? So that's kind of the goal.
So we solicited from our smaller working group. We said OK, who wants to be part of
phase zero, knowing there's going to be some trials and tribulations, right? When you're
dealing with any kind of pioneering effort and we're getting our proposals in. The
deadline, our internal deadline is Friday. And what is that pilot -- it's not really a pilot
even; it's phase zero of our system -- going to look like?
Then in addition to that we have a BTOP [Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program] application in on round two that we hope we're successful with to actually
finish the whole network. We went through a competitive process to select our BTOP
partner. At the end of that competitive process a non-UASI group actually was put
together of our stakeholders in those working groups.
So it was Marin County, Contra Costa County, Alameda County, San Francisco, all of
those counties. We selected people to make the decision. UASI kind of stayed out of it
for a variety of reasons. And I said at the end of the day we may not have a partner, don't
worry about it. If we don't have a partner we just don't apply for the grant, if we think we
have a partner let's go forward.
At the end of the session they selected Motorola to be their partner for the design, build
and maintenance of a broadband network. And Verizon as a partner for roaming. And
there will be parts of the bay area that don't have any infrastructure in place to leverage.
The key piece about our design that you'll need to be aware of is two things that I haven't
heard a lot of public safety agencies talking about. One is that instead of sharing the core,
paying a carrier to share a core, we want to buy a core and own and operate that public
safety core for the quality of service.
So we don't think that, although ruthless preemption is important, we don't think it's the
only thing that's important in a public safety network. So we're designing more of a public
safety network by leveraging our current investments and the investments we've made in
just the last three years in the bay area into infrastructure. So there's been a lot of fiber
investment, huge amounts of microwave investment.
But all the Land Mobile Radio systems we've invested in, all the P25 building we're
doing, all of those sites can be used towards what I call hardened broadband sites.
You've already got power, you've already got towers. They've got security. They're
resilient. They're being built to withstand earthquakes. So doesn't it make sense to have
the broadband sites located in the same areas?
Well, obviously there's going to be sites that don't have coverage, that don't have existing
public safety assets. So our partnership with Verizon will help, who has the C Block. That
will be very helpful to the spectrum that we would be receiving through the FCC waiver
and the PSST [Public Safety Spectrum Trust].
So that's one piece that's different; us owning and operating and managing the core and
the quality of service. Because we want a resilient network that will be there and not be
subject to overload from the general public that's downloading music or whatever
activities going on. Or in the event that has everybody trying to access it.
The other thing that's different about our design is parallel with this we will be building a
Canopy network for public access and that is on the same sites that are hardened that that
will be parallel to them. What does that allow them to do? It allows us to offer some very
low cost public access networks, it allows us to selectively create ability say for some
communication or more resilient communication, you know in an event with key anchor
institutions or stakeholders that are important to the recovery process.
So if I'm looking at building a parallel network that does have backup power, you know I
want to make sure that those key partners are going to be up and won't be subject to a
failed network say, when the power goes out after an earthquake, you know they can still
have access. Because I want to communicate out to the public, obviously, after an event
and then there's going to be key industries that we want to have access to broadband just
to ensure that they can recover rapidly after a big event. So, I think those are key
differences.
So our broadband strategy is pretty. I offer to you to look at our BTOP application
because it really goes into you know our design and it's very different, although there's
been a lot of discussion about D Block, I think we're the only ones that have been
proposing this kind of solution.
The other advantage to our design is what we're calling a PSIG switch and that is we're
offering, very similar to an ISSI switch and it basically ties back the network to the P25
system so if you are Chief Bascom from San Francisco Police Department, and you're
down in LA on vacation and something happens in San Francisco, utilizing your device,
you can get back in and talk on your Project 25 voice network and provide some sort of
command and control instructions. So it will go beyond a cellular device, you'll actually
be able to get back into your network through this PSIG switch.
Those are all things that are part of our unique design and I think we have a great strategy
and we're really, really very excited about embarking this pioneering effort. We think it
will really impact public safety communications in the Bay Area you know for at least the
next fifteen to twenty years, our ability, and I'm hoping that will bring a lot of value back
just to the public safety community, that they'll be able to learn from our mistakes and
also learn some valuable things about 700 LTE, what the bandwidth looks like, cell
outages and how to mitigate interference and all those things that we'll have kind of gone
through and we can share the experience with everyone else.
Ben: Excellent. Sounds really exciting. Do you see any other differences between the
partnership and formal agreement for Land Mobile Radio Systems and the need for
broadband wireless systems?
Laura: Yeah, we're actually in that discussion now. We've got a, our executive sponsor
for broadband, and actually, what we've done is we've said, "Let's look at shared assets
across the ten area counties. Where are the shared assets?” And not necessarily
connectivity of the individual land mobile radio systems but you know where we're
sharing bay loop or we're sharing broadband, those are going to be, we're going to have to
look at the agreements a little bit differently, especially when you have revenue being
generated off some, right? So we're actually in the process of crafting those now. We
think they just need to be, we'll take a look at those and take them back to our policy
groups to see what we need to add, so what we did was we formed the BAYRIC Policy
Group that will have a separate governance agreement just for that group. And they'll be
dealing with policy and how to use those shared assets. How we're going to determine
what the costs are, how we share those costs, how we share the revenue, you know that's
come off those.
So, Sheriff Ayhurn who is the regional mutual aid coordinator has stepped up to the plate
to be the executive sponsor and then we've put together our core membership of our
policy group and our first meeting's like at the end of June, just to get through some of
these broadband issues. So again, like I said earlier in our interview, you know
governance agreements need to be flexible and agile so that you can not have to bring
them back for a new signature every time you make a change but in this case we're
actually adding more agreements on how to use this new technology. Because I think
we'll continue to see that kind of thing and you know as new applications come out and
as broadband kind of grows or transpires or you know over the next few years.
Ben: Thank you. How else does BAYRICS Works help to provide a foundation for
these future regional efforts?
Laura: I think the common commitment to interoperability, moving away from the silo
mentality. Everyone in the Bay Area, they really made a huge commitment politically but
they just understand the value of interoperability. So you've gotten people past that kind
of control mentality where we all have the common goal. And BAYRICS, I think,
whether it's the governance structure, the monthly meetings, provides that forum and
everyone coming together, following that. And so that's where BAYRICS comes in and
provides that foundation.
Ben: In closing, what are your take away messages for success of others, in partnering
and similar projects?
Laura: I think the key piece and probably the first step is you really need to get your
executive leadership kind of signed on to the mentality before you embark on any of this.
So, it's getting that membership and we found that with all of our UASI sponsored
initiatives, even the ones that aren't related to interoperability, that you first seek
somebody who's going to take the lead and have the common interests at heart, right?
And let them kind of be the spokesperson, develop a marketing strategy around that and
kind of take off from there. I think that is, when you're talking about partnership
somebody still has to lead it, right? And picking the right agency to do that, in our case,
it's been fairly simple because we look at where there may be already existing, like long
term agreements that are already in place, like in the East Bay. Or if you have a role
within the state or with Cal SIEC that already exists, like in our case we had the Capital
Re-planning Area, but you know Sheriff Ayhurn being the regional mutual aid
coordinator for the region in California and in sense, that was kind of a place to kind of
launch any future endeavor. Look for those opportunities because they already exist in
most cases.
And then, you know, establish what your goals are and as you know with SEARCH
because you teach this, you teach this mentality, you always have to worry about scope
creep and make sure people are focused on what they need to accomplish. I think that's
another message. And I find that what works with me, when people are getting off task
or that the, that there may be one or two members that want to look at another agenda, if
I lay on the table "What is the right thing to do?" you usually get really, you can usually
get back to that point very simply. And when I lay that out, "What is the right thing to do
guys?" We always come back to that so that seems to work. So those would be my
messages towards people in general and governance structures or you know moving
forward any kind of collaborative process.
Ben: I just want to thank you. You've been listening to a Search podcast on partnering
and MOU Development. We'd like to thank our guest, Laura Phillips, Executive Director
for the Bay Area on C. Laura, thank you.
Laura: You're very welcome. [music]
Transcription by CastingWords
p.